IKEA Deletes The Images Of Women From Catalogue In Saudi Arabia

People looking at the IKEA catalogue in Saudi Arabia thought that there seemed something was missing: women. IKEA decided to airbrush out every picture of women in the catalogue while leaving men and children. In one example of the deletion the father, daughter and son are still shown in a bathroom scene but the mother has been removed. The ultimate symbol of women being invisible in the Kingdom.

The decision to make women vanished to satisfy Saudi sensibilities has caused an understandable ruckus in Sweden. The company expressed “regret” over the incident and said that “excluding women from the Saudi Arabian version of the catalog is in conflict with the IKEA Group values.”

Notably, IKEA is not alone. Starbucks in Saudi Arabia do not even show its classic symbol of a woman with flowing hair. It appears that even that fairly abstract image was too much for males in the Kingdom. One glimpse at the icon would have sent men insane with uncontrollable impulses in buying a latte.

When Starbucks used its standard logo in Egypt, it was boycotted not because of the image of a woman but because the woman was claimed to be Esther, a Jewish biblical figure. The cleric warned followers:

“The girl in the Starbucks logo is Queen Esther. Do you know who Queen Esther was and what the crown on her head means? This is the crown of the Persian kingdom. This queen is the queen of the Jews. She is mentioned in the Torah, in the Book of Esther. The girl you see is Esther, the queen of the Jews in Persia.”

No, we don’t do blog posts for “balance.” Authors post articles about subjects that catch their interest. There are plenty of articles posted about Bibi the Elder, and his daily “Iran Must Be Destroyed” rants.

Agreed. But to call oneself a prof real journalist.
Isn’t that dangerous? My impression of balanced reporters is that they don’t get published (or hired anymore). Or that they are fireball ídealists who do all but kamikaze errands in the middle east, Syrian latest. The PP winner died this year coming back from the mission for the NYTimes.

“….fashionable and trendy…” Isn’t that all today that gets or buys space.

Gonna be cool to see what answers you get on that. Let me be PC in an inverse way, and say it is PC to avoid that subject. An expression of dominance.
And playing to Prof Turley’s well known hatred of medieval cultures, most notably the muslim variety.

That’s his and their privilege. As some “bon mots” utterer said: “Justice is not fair. It is legal.”

And that goes for lots beside justice.

I usuallt defend the muslims or as I say try to cast another light. But here I have my own take expressed above. Market adaptation.

As for IKEA having a Christian ownership.
Ingmar Kamprad is I believe a firm Christian, coming from Småland as he does.

But I think he says his prayers to his money each night, and maybe even five times a day too.

I agree it is “PC” to avoid “that subject”… Or, as I like to call it: “cowardice.” But I didn’t come here to stir up a tempest. I enjoy about 99% of the Professor’s posts.

I am a journalist (a “real”, professional one), trained in the old-school method of balance. It’s currently fashionable and trendy to bash anything done by/for Muslims, like the “no sharia law” craze sweeping the right wing.

All I’m saying is: do a post about what is happening in Jerusalem. You know, for “balance”…

With very little afterthought I realize that “airbrushing” is a generic term fot modifying an image. What with the everexpanding possibilities of computerized image generation, including combining different elements, this is easy, or at least can be done cheaply.

Stock shot publishers abound.

Would it not have been cool if by mistake(?) a belly dancer had been “dropped” into the Saudi kitchen scene.

Or a Saudi clad father, in full regalia, hookah in reach, and flipping flapjacks with his admiring boys around him.

Yep … we jump on anybody … I really want to know why Ikea brushed out the Asian appearing guy. Who did they think he was going to offend? Or, would he just have looked crazy smiling at an empty space in front of him?

“You simply cannot have ads showing women in the public area. Because lunatic Jews will destroy them.
But… I guess the clicks only come when Muzzies do something “bad”…”

Tom actually most people on this blog are equal opportunity critics of all of the craziness of Religious Fundamentalist Zealots. Be they Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists or Hindi’s etc.

Air brushing costs money. This is called taking planned market adapted extra shots. Just change people, props, take away, add….etc.

Who knows, maybe the California edition is different from the NE USA Ikea catalogue. I mean not just pictures, but products offered, and the barbage written and the pics taken.

Remember, we learned about propaganda. This is related. I once produced a whole brochure to flatter a client whose order we needed. Paid a copywriter to come from England and fly to the customers land to inhale the atmosphere.

Does Turley not bother to even read the links to the stories he writes about?

The linked WSJ article states “Representatives for Swedish furniture giant IKEA on Monday apologized for removing women from some of the photos in catalogs shipped to Saudi Arabia, and said the blame lies squarely with them” and “Ms. Englesson Sandman said the omissions were completely needless since Saudi Arabia doesn’t prohibit women from being depicted in marketing material.”

This is a story about IKEA doing something stupid, Not about Saudi Arabia prohibiting pictures of women.

You should have mentioned that far worse is happening in JERUSALEM, where Orthodox Jews routinely tear down and deface all ads/poster/billboards that show anything female, even children. Feel free to Google it.

You simply cannot have ads showing women in the public area. Because lunatic Jews will destroy them.